Supreme Court Dismisses Kerala's Plea Challenging HC's Order To Relocate Rogue Elephant Causing Menace
The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a challenge by the state of Kerela against the order passed by the Kerela High Court directing the state to relocate the rogue elephant to the Parambikulam tiger reserve area. The Court observed that the recommendation made to the Kerela High Court was done by the state experts and that they will not interfere with it.
The bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice J.B. Pardiwala agreed to consider the matter upon an urgent mention made by the Senior Advocate Jayant Muthuraj appearing for the state of Kerela. The State of Kerela had moved Supreme Court against the directions of the Kerela High Court to relocate the rogue elephant nicknamed Arikomban from Idukki to Parambikulam wildlife sanctuary.
"Kerela is a small state, milords... let us capture it, train it and then let us take a call whether to relocate the elephant or not" submitted the Senior Advocate appearing for the state.
In the impugned order, the Kerala High Court had directed that the elephant gone rogue be relocated to the Muthuvarachal/Orukomban within the Parambikulam Tiger Reserve.
Considering the submissions made, the CJI expressed his disclination to entertain the petition and stated that if the state's own expert committee has suggested something then the state cannot go over and above it.
It was alleged that the elephant had been foraging into the Chinnakanal area in the Idukki District, and causing damage to the property in the human settlement areas. The decision comes after a five-member committee, constituted by the high court on March 29, recommended translocating the animal to Parambikulam instead of turning it into a captive tusker.
The Kerela High Court had recently dismissed the review petition filed by the MLA from the Nenmara Legislative Assembly Constituency. In the review petition, it was contended that the translocation of the elephant in question will pose a threat to the life and property of the settlers in Muthalamada Panchayath and is therefore violative of their fundamental rights under Art.21 of the Constitution. The High Court found the assertions to be baseless as there was no material produced that would suggest that such anticipated behaviour of the elephant is a certainty.
